Navalyze · Container · Ship

RANGER

IMO: 9322542
Type: Container ship
Average cargo carried: 4,746 t
Flag (estimated): Cyprus
Port of registry: Limassol
Technical efficiency: EIV 39.19 g CO₂/t·nm
Ice class: IA

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: Contarga Ltd.

Report year

2018 at a glance

From the 2018 THETIS-MRV report. Carries about 5,140 t of cargo on average.

Fuel kg/nm

83.0

Container median 182 kg/nm (−54%)

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)

50.7

g CO₂/t·nm · Container median 20.2 (+150%)

Average speed

13.1 kn

Container median 13.8 kn (−5%)

Fuel per day at sea

26.1 t/day

Fuel consumed

5,894 t

CO₂ emitted

18,476 t

Distance sailed

70,973 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

5,430 h

226 days, 62% of the year

Within the container fleet, 2025

Set against all 2,208 container ships with a full-year 2025 report. Bigger ships burn more per mile but less per tonne of cargo, so read fuel per mile with the ship's size in mind.

Fuel kg/nmThis ship 74.3 kg/nm · median 177 (−58%)

78.8Ranks 161 of 2,208, lowest first302

Average speedThis ship 14.3 kn · median 13.3 (+8%)

9.1Faster than 66% of container ships16.0

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)This ship 49.3 g CO₂/t·nm · median 16.3 (+203%)

7.22Ranks 2,018 of 2,208, lowest first46.9

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%Container medianThis ship

Where the emissions happen, 2018

THETIS splits each ship's CO₂ by voyage type. The split sets how much falls under the EU ETS: all of it within the EU and at berth, half of it on voyages into or out of the EU.

Between EU ports96%
From the EU0%
Into the EU0%
At berth in the EU4%

Fuel burned laden

5,894 t

100% of all fuel; 0% in ballast or unladen

CO₂ at berth

678 t

3.7% of the ship's CO₂, alongside in EU ports

Methane (CH₄)

–

Mainly from LNG; small for oil, biofuel and methanol

CO₂eq uplift

–

CO₂eq on top of CO₂ alone, from CH₄ and N₂O

Over the years

Full-year reports only. The Container median is the middle ship of all container ships reporting that year; it moves with the fleet, so a ship can gain on it without changing itself.

Fuel kg/nm

RANGER
Container median

50.0100.0150.0200.0

’182018’192019’202020’212021’222022’232023’242024’252025

Average speed, kn

RANGER
Container median

11.012.013.014.015.0

’182018’192019’202020’212021’222022’232023’242024’252025

CO₂ per transport work (cargo), g CO₂/t·nm

RANGER
Container median

10.020.030.040.050.060.0

’182018’192019’202020’232023’242024’252025

Year on year

Year	Average speed	Fuel kg/nm	Fuel per day at sea	Distance	CO₂ per transport work	Reading
2024→2025	+0.3 kn	−6%	−4%	−4%	−2%	0.3 kn faster, fuel per mile down 6%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2023→2024	+1.7 kn	+15%	+30%	+17%	+9%	1.7 kn faster, fuel per mile up 15%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2022→2023	−0.9 kn	−28%	−33%	−11%	–	0.9 kn slower, fuel per mile down 28%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2021→2022	−0.2 kn	+46%	+43%	−15%	–	Same speed, fuel per mile up 46%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2020→2021	−0.4 kn	−10%	−12%	+18%	–	0.4 kn slower, fuel per mile down 10%; in line with the speed change.
2019→2020	+1.9 kn	−1%	+15%	−5%	+1%	1.9 kn faster, fuel per mile flat; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2018→2019	−1.2 kn	−11%	−19%	−8%	−2%	1.2 kn slower, fuel per mile down 11%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).

Fuel per mile rises roughly with the square of speed for a given ship, so a change in speed explains much of a change in fuel per mile.

Every reporting year

One row per THETIS-MRV report. A ship that changed operator during a year has a part-year report for each.

Operation

Year	ISM company	Fuel t	CO₂ t	Distance nm	Hours at seah	Average speedknots at sea	Fuel kg/nmthis ship	CO₂ per transport work (cargo)g/t·nm, this ship	Laden fuel
2025	Contarga Ltd.	4,659	14,682	62,722	4,380	14.3	74.3	49.3	–
2024	Contarga Ltd.	5,160	16,368	65,385	4,666	14.0	78.9	50.1	–
2023	not published	3,833	12,045	55,721	4,517	12.3	68.8	46.1	–
2022	not published	5,970	19,100	62,443	4,719	13.2	95.6	–	–
2021	not published	4,802	15,348	73,043	5,444	13.4	65.7	–	–
2020	not published	4,533	14,367	61,789	4,493	13.8	73.4	50.1	99%
2019	not published	4,824	15,221	65,199	5,476	11.9	74.0	49.7	100%
2018	not published	5,894	18,476	70,973	5,430	13.1	83.0	50.7	100%

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/t·nm	Container median	vs Container	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025	Contarga Ltd.	49.3	16.3	+203%	2,018 of 2,208	Swiss Climate	A
2024	Contarga Ltd.	50.1	17.5	+186%	1,755 of 1,974	Swiss Climate	A
2023	not published	46.1	19.4	+138%	1,631 of 1,899	Swiss Climate	A
2022	not published	–	–	–	–	Swiss Climate	A
2021	not published	–	–	–	–	Swiss Climate	A
2020	not published	50.1	17.6	+185%	1,601 of 1,797	Bureau Veritas	A
2019	not published	49.7	18.9	+163%	1,543 of 1,788	Bureau Veritas	A
2018	not published	50.7	20.2	+150%	1,495 of 1,705	Bureau Veritas	A

Fuel per mile and CO₂ per tonne-mile are the ship's own reported KPIs. Container ships are benchmarked on CO₂ per transport work (cargo) (TW), in g CO₂/t·nm. CO₂eq adds methane and nitrous oxide and is in the public files from 2024. Rank counts from the lowest figure among that year's container ships. Methods: A delivery notes, B tank monitoring, C flow meters, D direct measurement. FuelEU GHG intensity is not shown: it needs fuel types, which the public file does not carry. Operators are named only from 2024, the first year the public files carry them; earlier years belong to the ship, not to any company.